The whole nation - the Kalmyks - has perished. Last year, under Denikin a committee was established to investigate villainies of the Bolsheviks. It consisted of prominent public and judicial figures and accumulated richest and most reliable material, which partially was recently brought to Paris.

I’ve met a friend who came with this material; he is an intimate member of this committee and a well-known Zemskii leader and a writer. He between everything said:

We were given documents mainly, of course, on the Southern part of Russia. Even that was enough to be merely stumped by the picture that revealed to us during our work. Let’s take small piece of this huge and horrendous picture – the part of our documents that referred to religious blasphemy, religious persecution, and torture of believers and clergymen. I am convinced that a few fully realize what the Bolsheviks, at least in this particular region, have done. It is hard to believe, though it is a fact, that 20th century, Christian Russia is far behind Rome with its persecution of first Christians especially with the number of victims. Not to mention the character of those persecutions that goes beyond description in vileness and brutality. As far as Kalmyks, whom I have mentioned recently, almost complete execution of this poor tribe happened, figuratively speaking, in front of my eyes. As known, Kalmyks are Buddhists; they lived nomadic live and bred cattle. When our “great and bloodless revolution” came and all Russia drowned in pervasive plundering, only Kalmyks stayed out of it. Propagandists would come to them with insistent call “to pillage pillaged” – Kalmyks would only shake their heads: “God doesn’t allow this”. They were called counter-revolutionists, snatched, imprisoned – still they did not give up. Most ruthless decrees were issued, “for circulation among Kalmyk people slogans which are counteractive to the realization of revolutionary struggle, families of those who are guilty would be executed without exception starting from seven-year olds!” – Kalmyks did not give up even then. “Revolutionary peasantry seizes the land allotted once by the Tsarist government for the Kalmyks to roam, for their pastures” -- then, Kalmyks were made to move and wander in order to save their cattle from hungry death, they move further and further South. But on their way, they always get in the way of military actions, into Bolsheviks’ “sphere of influence” – and again loose both their own lives, and cattle, -- their cattle and herds are captured and devoured by Red Army men, horses are taken away for the need of the Red Army. Kalmyks are driven out elsewhere – to the Volga, to the Great Russia, and of course, they die, croak on the way from hunger and homelessness. Thus, exhausted from all kinds of deprivations and pillage, convolving from various diseases, Kalmyks reach Black seashores. There they stop with their humongous camps, stand and anticipate, that some ship would reach for them – and they die, die from hunger, among the remnants of falling cattle…They say that not less than 50,000 of Kalmyks died only on the Black seashores! And we should remember, there were only 250,000 of them. Thousands, whole trains delivered to us in Rostov their Gods, desecrated Buddhas, often broken into pieces, with obscene handwritings. Perhaps, nothing now has been left from altars and joss houses…

Common Cause (Paris). 1920. 135. November 27

Special committee was formed in December, 1918 with the instructions from the Entente states. It published a set of collected material. Introduction to the French edition of these documents was prepared by P.B. Struve (1919)

Elza-Bair GuchinovaNation and the discourse of guilt:Reconciliation with the past in the political memory of Kalmyk people

In the Soviet period, history of Kalmyks for a long time consisted of two stories, both undesirable for public discussion and excluded from the official narrative of the past, however, present in the collective awareness. These are – the history of Kalmyk Cavalry Corps (here and after KSC) – military collaborative unit, and deportation of Kalmyk nation in 1943-1956. As known, charges with collaboration became the grounds for the total deportation of Kalmyks. Deportation as a result of which Kalmyks of all ages were forcibly relocated to the East of the country began on December 28, 1943. In the next few months Kalmyks of Rostov and Stalingrad obslasts’ were deported, and soldiers and officers were called back from the front line. Disenfranchised life in inhuman conditions, high death rate from hunger, cold and diseases were regarded as punishment to Kalmyks, first of all, for the actions of the Kalmyk Corps. Thirteen-year long status of outcasts, severe human losses and later public trials of KSC officers in the late 1960s-1970s entrenched the sense of “collective guilt” in the public minds. History of KSC, main institute of collaborationism, which, in fact, Kalmyks bore their guilt for, has been ousted from the official narrative of the past, but continued to live in the “mythical” memory.

There are several versions of the past that have shaped Kalmyk cultural memory about colloborationism. One of them, the official version was formulated in 1943 by the decree of the Presidium of USSR’s Supreme Soviet "About the liquidation o of Kalmyk ASSR..." and has been completed by the rhetoric of officers’ trials. It is opposes by the Anti-Soviet version of this historical period formed by the remaining abroad leaders of collaborationism. Apart from these mutually exclusive options of the past, represented by the successive narrations, there are "native" and "local" version transmitted within the family, friends, or co-workers.

With the collapse of the USSR and the weakening of ideological control of the Communist Party, different interpretation of Kalmykia’s past spread outwards and became available. This open confrontation of different versions of the past has taken place with the background crystallization of the post-Soviet national histories, search for new forms of the story of the past, at the centre of which is the nation. The goal of this article is to show how feeling of guilt for the actions of Corps reflected on the political memory of Kalmyk society’s, in which national history and its formation depends directly on how society will be able to "come to terms" with its past.Former KSC’s Chief of Staff D. Arbakov escaped repatriation, joined Kalmyks of the first wave of emigration, and after several years of living in a camp for displaced people moved to the United States. When I interviewed him in 1998, he was 85 years old. Arbakov’s memory struck me. He clearly remembered all names, positions, titles, dates and places. His logically fitted speech with the necessary historical information, in my view, was not only the result of much thinking, but also the consequence of repeated replication. As a narrative memory Arbakov presented, so to say, the official legend: the beginning of the annihilation of the Kalmyk people was the initiative shown by the general Oka Gorodovikov - then Arbakov conveyed data on the composition and size of Kalmyk units thrown against Germans, and drew attention to the weak ammunition and military training, to the futility of resistance in such conditions, and the terror Soviet authorities:

At that time, we were having defensive battles against heavily armed SS Division: 20 thousand soldiers, 500 tanks and more than 100 aircraft. Humans were against steel. We were condemned to death. Our rear was guarded by NKVD army, you couldn’t make a step back. Those who dared were killed by NKVD. Division lost 1,000 killed, 300 captured, 1,000 soldiers fled home, in spite of NKVD as it was reported from home that the families are starving from hunger and dying.

According to Arbakov memories, while Kalmyk units fought against the Nazis, Soviet authorities were implementing anti-Kalmyk policies:

Kalmyk obkom and SNK with the order from Moscow issued a decree to drive the livestock away, to the east of the Volga River, and to evacuate cereal-based foods. People were starving, swelling, and were writing to their sons and husbands about child death from hunger, asking them to return home. This was in July. I think that the decree to deport Kalmyks to Siberia was prepared by Beria as early as June.

Arbakov thinks that “the Soviet state showed Imperial chauvinism aimed at the annihilation of the nation and seizure of the territory for the neighboring areas, which need pastures. Therefore, the people sent to the front." What Arbakov remembered forms a version, according to which Soviet government put Kalmyks in the conditions when they simply had to join the Germans: For seven hard days of military action, 51st Army of the Southern Front did not assist to OKKD with any tanks or planes. We were doomed to perish. In addition, stolen from the Republic cattle, famine of the parents did not set soldiers to wage a heroic struggle. Thousand of fighters returned to the Republic. In July-August the cattle from Stavropol, Krasnodarsky region, Rostov region was already driven away from Volga. Up to a hundred of different groups of 15 to 20 people, who were taking away cattle from neighboring areas and feeding people, appeared here and there. Soviets called them bandits. By the time Germans arrived there already existed a Corps – the saviors of the people.

Thus, the Kalmyk Corps appears to be an avant-guard liberation struggle against the Soviet Empire that planned destruction of the Kalmyk nation. The Soviet authority is responsible for the emergence of Kalmyk parts that fought on the side of Hitler's Germany: it was not the Germans who created the so-called Kalmyk Corps, but the Soviet system logically created the Corps.

So the version of the second-emigration Kalmyks is logically completed by the narration, which tells how Anti-Kalmyk Soviet policy led to the creation of the KSC, not as a collaborative but rather as and Anti-Soviet and national unit. Who were those on whose behalf Arbakov “remembered” in the late 1980s? Was not their "collaborationism" a forced response to the actions of the military leadership, Order No. 260 dated August 17, 1941 denying the troops the right to life by not ratifying the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, that resulted in a 5.7 million dead Soviet prisoners of war in captivity, 3.3 of which died due to hunger and disease? Many of Kalmyk collaborates ware recruited in the “Ostlegionen", the camps for POWs.The success of such recruitment, in the words of P. Polyana, “depended only upon one factor, the level of hell in a camp”. The most likely alternative to collaborative Soviet POW was death. Facts of cannibalism repeatedly spoke out about how brutal conditions were in the camps for prisoners of war. Let us return to the other versions of the memory of the Kalmyk unit. In 1963, when it seemed like the war, deportation and camps were in the past; the Soviet press begun an active denounce campaign act against Kalmyk Corps. Processes had to contain increased from Ottepel expectations of Kalmyk people: having their statehood back, watching federal investment in the Republican science, education, theatre, print, Kalmyks expected full territorial rehabilitation, the return of the two economically powerful regions remaining in the Astrakhan region, and the rebuilding of Kalmyk area in the Rostov region. Thus, the Soviet state attempted to prevent territorial claims by recalling Kalmyks on their own to the State. Plus, it would be a good lesson for the other "guilty" nations. The discussion tone and the presence of children who had to renounce their fathers publicly were very similar to the political processes of 1930’s. It is enough to look at the letter to the newspaper, which is hardly written with good will by a person who is facing family tragedy: Khadzhigorov who is now in the bench, only formally is my father and I am his daughter. He has never been a father and a decent man. No only has he killed civilians and innocent people, but he also has ruined the live of my mother, a woman who has given birth to his four children. I am the eldest in the family and, therefore, and indeed have, along with my mother all her grief and the shame of the so-called father. I have been betrayed by this father. The father to our family has been the Soviet Power, and we are proud of that. Our beloved mother spared no health, her life and youth to make real Soviet People from us. It was only Soviet power, the Soviet people, who helped her, but not Khadzhigorov. I call on my own behalf, on behalf of my family, sister, her family, on behalf of hundreds of massacred innocent people who died at the hands of the torturer, on behalf of the entire Kalmyk people to announce a fair verdict, the death penalty, to the betrayer Khadzhigorov. ……………The process was questionable, however. It was reported that when a witness asked at the trial in Krivoy Rog : “Do you recognize the killers?”, the people of Ukraine confidently said “Yes” and pointed out to a group of Kalmyk judges and prosecutors, which were approximately the same age as the defendants during the war years. In this comical story narrated by lawyers the authenticity of all the evidence was questioned. If for Ukrainians, all Kalmyks looked the same, the events of twenty years could have garbled in memory as well. People were afraid that the process of the charged would become a trial of the Kalmyk people. In the air hung the question “Back to Siberia?” The Kalmyks received additional impetus not to remember any history of Corps or trials. Many speakers for the 1968 broadcast live on the radio. Residents of the republic have come to be associated with the Kalmyk military collaborationism.The last process took place in 1983, when charged the member of the Corps Litvinov, who was Belgian citizen at that time arrived to the Soviet Union with as a tourist visa. After 40 years, at the courthouse, in Elista the witness of war crimes from Ukraine identified him. Military Tribunal of Caucasian Military District sentenced the 79-year old defendant to death by firing squad. Due to the absence of accurate information on the people in the Corps the other “soft” version occurred. It was supposed that he was only called a Kalmyk, though, in fact, genetically he had no more than 20% of Kalmyk genes. Thus, the people suffered for nothing, for the sins of others.As I was told by the former KGB officer, in the 1979s by the order of the state, the title of the heroine of the socialist labor had to be given to a Kalmyk woman. There had been three candidates, but one after another they was rejected due to the fact that some of the relatives of each female had been linked to the Corps or was in the occupation. It was finally decided to give the title to a woman of Slavic origin, which, as it was said, "did not need to be verified”.The prosecution of the entire people backed by thundering trials left the unforgiven “stain” on the reputation of the Kalmyks. It is no coincidence that these "facts" were recalled by the grandchildren of the war generation. They have become a response to a question on rightful Kalmyk areas of the Astrakhan region. The renounce Corps publications written in the same style, appeared in the national press at a time when Ordinance on the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples, as well as benefits and compensation, which could be made public in connection with the decree were discussed . We, Kalmyks, are told in a dry official language to be aware of allegedly shameful past, somewhere questioning holy to the Kalmyks Law on Repressed People. These debates reflect the "policy of guilt" and the "policy of memory" in modern Russia as a whole, and in Kalmyk society, in particular. The Collaborationism of Soviet people R. Konkwest regarded as a plebiscite. However, according to a fair comment of P. Polyana, the results of the plebiscite always depend on the specific circumstances of the investigation. The most pressing issue of the Corps is its manpower: who were the participants and how many of them were there? The Corps includes detachments of “self-defense”, i.e. deserters hiding in the rush, led some to call all members of corps “rushers” (Russian “kamyshatniki”). One of the Soviet official Archives maintains a list of the Corps personnel, which consisted of 3254 people, who served with guns. In addition, the Corps there was the so-called civilian group of 800. These people were responsible for cooking, washing up, sewing clothes and footwear, and taking care of animals. The connection between the Corps and the deportation of 1943 is even more significant. The interpretation of the second tragedy as a consequence of the first is still dominant in the public mind of people. What counter-discourse of guilt was available to Kalmyks in Soviet times? As noted above, in order to counter the discourse of “crime and punishment”, the Kalmyk historians, many of which were soldiers of the Red Army and all of which were evicted, turned to the theme of Kalmyk participation in the Great Patriotic War, especially to the history of 110th OKKD . They stressed that if the Corps were no more than five thousand fighters, in the 1941-1943 it was estimates that the Red Army mobilized all Kalmyk men of military age, who could perform military service. According to the B. Ubushaev’s estimations 30,000 Kalmyks served in the army; and in the enemy’s rear on the occupied territories there fought 20 guerrilla groups. The Corps History has become a “fixed idea of the past”, the Kalmyk version of the “Vichy Syndrome”. Modern Kalmyk mnemo-project is necessary for the re-formation of a national identity. It hould be open and oriented towards non-ideological professional look at the "inconvenient past", which will include it in the historical narrative of Kalmyk people. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious and cultural contacts of Kalmyk people with Tibet have an age-long history. Already in the XIII century during the times of conquering crusades of Chinngis-Khaan and his sons Mongols and Kalmyk ancestors, Oyirads (or Western Mongols), got acquainted with Buddhism. However, this world religion did not become widespread among them up until the last third of the XVI century; before it was preserved just among the close circle of nomadic elite. The masses remained faithful to the traditional religion of their ancestors – shamanism.

Gelug-pa, the second conversion of Mongols into Buddhism

In the second half of the XVI century, revival of the cultural life of Mongols and Oyirads, which was related to the final victory of feudal relations in the country, is notable. Aspiration to restore political unity needed ideological support. Nomadic rulers again turned to Tibet and its ideology. In the last third of the XVI century the so-called “second conversion of Mongols into Buddhism” took place. It was officially arranged at the Kukunor gathering of the South-Mongolian khans with Altan-khan Tumet as a leader. At it relationship principles between Mongolian secular arm and Buddhist centre were formed and legalized.

At that time, Altan-khan granted to the leader of the “yellow-hat” sect (Gelug-pa school) of Tibetan Buddhism, Sodnam-Chzhamtso, who was spreading Buddhism among Mongols, the title of Dalai-Lama (“the Great Lama). That was supposed to testify the depth and endlessness of his teaching, wisdom, and holiness, comparable only to the ocean. Gelug-pa sect represented reformed and centralized Buddhist Church and was formed in the beginning of the XV century by the outstanding reformer and thinker Tsongkapa (1357-1419). Tsongkapa chose Lhasa as his place of being. There in 1409 he formed first monastery of Gelug-pa sect called Galdan; he developed for it monastic regulations and introduced celibacy for lamas. He also established complex system of church hierarchy and introduced magnificent rituals. Tsongkapa’s reforms facilitated consolidation of the political position of the new sect and the growth in the number of its followers.

Soon after the death of the “founder of Lamaism” new highest unit was gradually formed in the upper lamaist hierarchy of the “yellow-hat” sect. According to the legend, Tsongkapa allegedly prophesied during his lifetime, that two of his prominent students will constantly reincarnate into two highest hierarchs of the Lamaist school. One of this reincarnations later received a title of Dalai-Lama, the other – Panchen-rimpoche ( in Tibetan “the great treasure of the teaching”), or shortly Panchen Lama. First Dalai-Lamas were only successors of Tsongkapa in the leading position of Gelug-pa sect. After the death of the first one, the principle of “reincarnation” was formulated, i.e. re-birth of the dead leader of the sect into newly-born baby. This guaranteed succession of Gelug-pa sect’s administration that was consistent with celibacy.

Lamaist chief priests of the “yellow-hat” sect start carrying the title of Dalai-Lama since the times of the third Dalai-Lama, Sodnam-Jamtso(1543-1588). Along with his title he also received from Altan-khan golden seal with the dragon image. This acknowledgement by the newly-converted Mongol khan that Dalai-Lama had the leading position in Tibetan Buddhist world had far-reaching consequences. From then on, Dalai-Lamas started to lay claims to their leading position not only in the religious affairs, but also in the matters of secular governance.

Famous Dalai-Lama V Avgan Lubsan-Jamtso (1617-1682) played prominent role in the establishment of theocracy in Tibet. Theocracy (from Greek “the rule of God”) is “the form of government with which management of the state is performed mainly by priesthood and clergy, and the head of the church hierarchy has the ultimate religious and secular power”. Worship of the source of power and the personality of Dalai-Lama, the embodiment of boddhisatva (the future Buddha) Avalokiteshvara, served as an ideological basis to the theocracy in Tibet and state-management was seen as one of his religiously-prophetic functions.

After Altan-khan Tumed, other Mongolian and Oyirad rulers start spreading Buddhism in their domains. Expansion of Buddhism among Oyirads is tied to the name of Torgout ruler Mergen-Tumen, who in 1604 invited prominent missioner-preacher of Lamaism and official representative of Dalai-Lama, Tsagan Nomin-khan, for teachings of new religion.

In Mongolia, translation of Buddhist canonic works into Mongolian language restarted; old manuscripts and printed editions were searched for. Educated lamas start coming from Tibet to Mongolian and Oyirad pasturelands, while young Mongols and Oyirads, followers of the new religion, were studying in Tibet. Often, they were from noble families. Two persons from these Oyirad monks of noble origin should be mentioned. They were studying in Tibet and were known later in their motherland as the preachers of the «yellow religion». The eldest one is Neyji-Toyin (1557-1653), the son of the mentioned-above Torgout nobleman Mergen-Tumen and Panchen-Lama's student, who became the first teacher of the new religion among Mongolian khanates. Another Oyirad monk is the famous enlightener and religious figure Zaya-PanditOgtorghyiin Dalai (1599-1662), the creator of the written language «Todo Bichg». After studying for over twenty years in Tibet and «achieving the limits of knowledge», Zaya Pandita enjoyed such a great prestige that he taught dogma on religious faculties of the largest Tibetan monasteries. His biographer Ratnabhadra said that when His Holiness Dalai-lama turned 19 years and Holiest Panchen-lama took his monks vow of gelung, Zai-pandita was one of a dozen gelloungs present at the ceremony. In 1639 taught by life experiences scientists, as an educated Lama he returns home to Zuungaria "in order to benefit religion, and human beings, speaking Mongolian, through the translation of the holy books “.

With preaching mission Zaya-Pandittraveled all around Oyirad land from the Yellow river to Yaik and from Altai to Himalayas. Also twice in 1645 and 1655, he visited Volga Kalmyks, who in the middle of the XVII century finally accepted Russian citizenship. During it, he was trying to achieve not only missioner’s goals, but also political ones. As a representative of Dalai-Lama, Zaya Pandita was called upon to establish close contact between Tibet and Kalmyk rulers which converted to Buddhist in their old motherland, Zuungaria. They, however, continued to head for Lhasa in the bigger religion matters. Tibet continued to be religious and spiritual centre, in a way Tibetan was Vatican for Kalmyks, as well as Oyirads and Mongols.

Protectors of the “yellow religion”

Consolidation of their influence in Mongolia, and in Zuungaria, in particular, was a large victory for the “yellow-hat” sect headed by Dalai-Lama. Its position in Tibet itself was, however, not so successful. In XIV-first half of XVII century feudal division and constant struggle for power between different religious sects (monasteries) and secular feudals prevailed there. All secular and spiritual feudals of Tibet gradually got sucked into internal fights, and their struggle for power took form of a religious warfare between “red-hat” (Karma-pa) and “yellow-hat” (Gelug-pa) sects of Tibetan Buddhism. By the 1730s position of the “yellow-hat” sect had deteriorated extensively. It seemed like its downfall was inescapable.

In these conditions Dalai-Lama and Panchen-Lama in 1637 made a decision to send ambassadors to the rulers of Dorben-Oyirads (fours Oyirads) for help. With this mission, a monk by the name Garulozava left for Zuungaria. Upon his arrival he “reported to the khan and high officials that Tsan emperor and others have a desire to ruin yellow religion and that they hate yellow-hatters and exert violence towards them…” Oyirads rulers happily received Dalai-Lama’s messenger and after discussion of the appeal for help from Lamaist hierarchs at their gathering – chuulgan – stated to send to Tibet united army of all Dorben-Oyirads. Khoshuut ruler Tooru-Baikhu, known historically under the name of Guushi-Khan (1582-1654), took command of the army. Rulers of all Oyirad ethno-political confederations took part in this military campaign of 1637: from Khoshuuts came Guushi-Khan and Duurgechi-noyon, from Eeuts (Dzhungars) – Khara-Khula, Baatur-khuntaidji and Mergen-Daichin, from Torgouts -- Merget-Tumen, Mergen-Dzhinon, and Gombo-Ieldeng, from Hoyids -- Sultan-taishi and Sumer-taishi, from Derbets -- Dalai-taishi, Bumbu-Ieldeng and others. On the outskirts of Kukunor, the immediate threshold into Tibet, Oyirad army in the bloody battle destroyed the 30-thousand army of the “red-hat” sect’s ally, important East-Mongolian feudal Tsoktu-Taiji. Oyirad army had a following formation: Khoshuuts in the centre, on the left flank were fighting the troops of Eelets, which were called the “Dzhungarin tsereg”, or the army of the left wing, “Dzhungar army”. On the right flank stood the Torgout warriors, and in the rear guard were Derbets and Hoyids. As the Oyirad historical document “History of Kho-Orluk” says from that time Eelets were referred to as “Dzhungar”.

Guushi-Khan and theocracy in Tibet

Guushi-Khan managed to establish his control in Kukunor, and there emerged new Oyirad khanate – Khoshut Khanate- that lasted until 1723. In 1637-1638 main part of his Khoshuut subjects moved there from Zuungaria. Kukunor could serve as a good bridgehead for entering into inner regions of Tibet and establishing there a personal influence. In 1638, Guushi-Khan makes a personal pilgrimage to Tibet, to Dalai-Lama Agoan-Lubstanchzhamtso. Dalai-Lama V granted him a title of “Danzin-Choidzhal” (“Tsar of laws and the supporter of religion”). In his turn, Guushi-Khan gave to the dignitaries of Dalai-Lama’s retinue Mongolian titles of dalama, taiji, dayan etc. which Tibetan officials of high ranks carried up until the middle of the XX century.During the following three years Oyirad armies defeated troops of Dalai-Lama’s opponents from the camp of the “red-hat” sect and their secular allies. After that, Guushi-Khan established his power over all regions of Tibet and took “the high throne of Tibetan kings”. However, beware of uprisings of Tibetans against foreign rulers, he, in 1642, passed on the supreme power over all of Tibet to Dalai-Lama V, Agvan Lubsan Jamtso. This step of the Oyirad ruler received enormous approval from the lamaist hierarchs. It was depicted in the visual art of Tibet. A large painting in one of the major temples in Lhasa portrays Guushi-Khan bended on his knees and passing on to Dalai-Lama and the Regent the symbols of secular power. In works of Tibetan authors, Guushi-Khan appears as a powerful protector and defender of the religion, who defeated and annihilated all enemies of Dalai-Lama, and “made the yellow religion shine like a sun”.

Lhasa was officially announced the capital of the united Tibet, and the residence of Dalai-Lama and his government. The beginning of Dalai-Lama’s palace erection, Potala, outstanding monument of Tibetan architecture, also refers to these years.Guushi-Khan died in 1654 at the age of 74. His victory over the enemies of the “yellow hat” sect had important consequences for the history of Tibet. It facilitated the unification, as well as the final establishment of theocracy in this country along with absolute prevalence of Gelug-pa school. This reflected on the political structure of Tibet. Dalai-Lamas started to head Tibetan government and they had supreme secular and religious authority. Dalai-Lama V became known in the history under the name of “the Great Fifth”.

This was one the most memorable parts in the history of Tibetan-Oyirad and Tibetan-Kalmyk relations.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translated by Danara Dourdoussova. Original can be found on www.hamagmongol.narod.ru

Hello comrades, I was wondering someone could please tell any history that is known about Dorvod and Bayad Kalmykia and pre-Kalmykia. Presently the majority of the things I know have come from this site http://www.mandal.ca...ad_Mongols.html I have heard that Dorvod might be a derivative of the Naimans is there any credibility to this statement?

I know this question is a bit heavy especially for my first post but this is the only Oirat site I could find even though it is in Russian. As you can tell I don't know Russian though I can speak conventional Khalkha dialect (although most Khalkha believe I am speaking in Tsahar Hahaha ! maybe it is has something to do with a combination of accents including Oirat. There are people in my family who are much more knowledgeable but to be honest folk studies is a bit of a guilty pleasure. If you would like to reply in Oirat please do so, even with Crylic I will reply try to reply in Oirat or english with Russian translation at the bottom.

I have heard that Dorvod might be a derivative of the Naimans is there any credibility to this statement?

Dorvods are the descendants of the NaimansTorguuds are of the Kereits

I think Dorvods were not descendants of Naimans, as on the beginning of 11th century before Chingis khan's conquers the tribes were distinctively different.Chinese chronicle Tongjian gangmu 通鑑綱目 and Yuan Chao Bi Shi have one of the earliest references about the Durbot tribe name. They tell following sequence of events:Wan Khan of Kereits had bad relations with his uncle Dzhur and brothers and good relations with Yesugei.Yesugei helped him to defeat Wan Khan's uncle and put more Kereit people under his control. After Yesugei's death Wan Khan's younger brother Erke Hara with his Kereit people came under Naiman's ruler Inaqci in order to defeat Wan Khan.Naiman's ruler Inaqci defeated Wan Khan for benefit of Erke Hara.Wan Khan retreated to Uigurs but thereafter left them and became very poor.Chingis khan became patron of Wan Khan and having defeated Merkits, Chingis khan made Wan Khan wealthy and powerful again.Wan Khan regardless to Chingis Khan's opinion started his own campaign and defeated Toqto beki - the khan of Merkits. After that Naimans showed more hostility to Wan Khan and Chingis Khan, and after series of battles Naimans gradually started to become weaker.Chingis Khan and Wan Khan together had defeated another powerful tribe - the Taichiuts.Having heard about Naimans and Taichiuts fate the tribes Hatagin, Salzhiut, Durbot, and Hungiri started to prepare for the war. They've united with some other tribes Ikiras, Horlas, Tatars and had elected Dzhamuha as their khan, and being in coalition with Naimans started war against Chingis khan and Wan Khan.